Questions on the Mannual and its Terminology

 

Questions on the Mannual and its Terminology 

 

A few suggestions regarding terminology before I make any changes to the document:

 

1. Set 1 黏貼法 , Technical Table

 5.2 "withdraw"(and all the other references to "withdraw")

My understanding is that the arm does not "withdraw" (收回）but instead, it opens/spreads （撒開） outwards no more than 90 degrees while the palm faces down

Consider using: opens or spreads outwards, no more than 90 degrees with palm facing down

Your understanding shows a great refinement of body mechanics — especially your sensitivity to how wording affects movement quality.

I agree with you that using the word “withdraw” (收回) can easily create the wrong internal image. It often implies pulling back locally with the arm. However, in Set 1 黏貼法, the movement is not an isolated arm retraction.

That said, I would suggest one more adjustment to make the mechanics even clearer:

Instead of starting from “opens/spreads outward,”

I would feel like it is better to first describe it as a turning/rotation of the waist (腰轉動).

Because if we say “open outward” first, many practitioners will feel as though they are using local shoulder or arm force to move the limb away from center. That creates segmented movement and breaks whole-body coordination.

In reality:

• The waist rotates.

• The arm is carried by the rotation.

• The forearm naturally opens to no more than 90 degrees.

• The palm remains facing downward.

So technically, it is not:

“withdraw the arm”

and not purely:

“open/spread the arm outward”

But rather:

“Left arm is carried outward by waist rotation, opening no more than 90 degrees with the palm facing down.”

This keeps:

·         Whole-body connection

·         No local force in the shoulder

·         Continuous sticking quality

·         Structural integrity of Peng

Would you agree with this?

2. Set 2 & Set 3 外承接， 内承接

Instead of :Outer Receiving and Inner Receiving Methods

Consider using: Outer Connecting  and Inner Connecting Methods

Explanation: 吴老師 often says 左手右手，左手右手 In this context, the "接‘’ action is more "connecting or linking" rather than "receiving".

Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion regarding “Outer Connecting” and “Inner Connecting.”

My original translation was actually “connection.” However, after reconsidering the Chinese terminology, I adjusted it because the original wording in Chinese is not simply 接, but 承接.

This distinction is important.

The original phrase is 內外套接, which, in my understanding, emphasizes structural linking without a clear force direction — more like neutral attachment or coordinated linking. In that sense, “connecting” is reasonable.

However, 承接 carries a slightly different implication.

承 means to bear, undertake, or receive; 接 means to connect or join. Together, 承接 suggests that there is a direction of force, and that one side issues while the other receives. Even if the force is very light, there is still a perceptible directional transmission, and that force ultimately conducts into the ground.

For example, in hand connection (搭手), there is no force direction — it is simply establishing contact. We do not say “hand receiving,” because that would already imply a directional exchange. So “connection” is appropriate there.

But when the term 承接 is used, it suggests more than maintaining contact. It implies that force is being accepted, conducted, and transmitted — even if very subtle. Structurally, there is a pathway.

If we follow Master Wu’s logic, we may say there is “no force direction.” However, practically speaking, someone must move first. The one who initiates the movement is, in that moment, the issuer. The other becomes the receiver — even if lightly. That already clarifies a directional relationship, even though it may continuously change.

Of course, we understand that what we call “issuing” (發勁) is not muscular pushing from the arm. It is actually ground reaction force — rebound force traveling upward through the body structure. However, once that rebound force travels through the body and expresses outward, there is an identifiable energy flow direction.

If the rebound force travels from A to B, then B receives the energy from A and moves in sync with that flow of energy. B is not merely staying connected; B is accepting, conducting, and responding to the transmitted force. That dynamic relationship reflects the meaning of 承接 more accurately than simple connection.

So even within a refined, neutral framework, once movement begins, there is an issuing pathway and a receiving pathway — which supports the interpretation of 承接 as containing directional meaning.

This may reflect one of the subtle differences between Master Wu and Secretary General Wu. Master Wu often emphasizes the conceptual absence of force direction. However, when the terminology is 承接 rather than 套接 or simply 接, I feel it implies at least a minimal receiving quality — not merely staying connected, but actually receiving and conducting force.

Of course, receiving here does not mean resisting or stiffening. It may be extremely light, but the directional pathway still exists.

If my interpretation of 承接 versus 套接 is inaccurate, please correct me — I would sincerely welcome clarification.

What are your thoughts on this distinction?

Do you feel 承接 here implies directional receiving, or do you see it purely as connection?

 

 

 

3. Set 2 外承接 , Sequence & Technical Table

We have to be very clear using the following terms:

* Frame (架) -Glossary A13 versus

* Upward Peng (上掤）- Glossary A12

Please refer to Athlete A, Sequence Number 7

It says "upward frame" however, the diagram in the  manual on page 11 says "上掤手‘’. So this should then translate as " upward peng", not "upward frame".

 

*I interpret Frame (架）as referring to the upper torso/body). So the Frame (upper torso/body) rotates but the arm does the upward peng.

 

If you agree, then we need to elaborate on the description in the "Sequence" and "Technical Table" sections.

 

If you disagree, then we need to leave out the word Frame as I feel it is  misleading.

Thank you for raising this important distinction between:

·         Frame (架) – Glossary A13

·         Upward Peng (上掤) – Glossary A12

Regarding Athlete A, Sequence 7, the text clearly says 向上架 (“upward frame”). There is no diagram that explicitly states 上掤手, so we should remain faithful to what is actually written in the Chinese manual.

However, I would like to explain my hesitation with the term Frame (架).

In English, “frame” easily implies a structural bracing or supporting action — something mechanical or external. In fact, in the glossary I defined 架 as:

“An upward intercepting action using forearm structure to lift or block the opponent’s force.”

This definition itself already leans toward a more external interpretation — emphasizing intercepting, lifting, or blocking. It suggests structural support, which may sound more static than elastic.

Internally, however, the movement should not become a rigid bracing action. The upward quality should still be supported by ground reaction force, whole-body integration, and elastic expansion. In that sense, the internal feeling resembles Upward Peng more than a purely structural “frame.”

That said, since the Chinese text clearly uses 架, and there is no reference in the manual explicitly calling it 上掤手, I do not think we can simply replace it with “Upward Peng.” To do so would be imposing our interpretation rather than translating faithfully. However, as you may see, Secretary General Wu’s original wording, not the manual’s is: 續回轉向上掤手In his original version, the action is clearly described as “Upward Peng Hand.”

 

So at this point, I see two possible approaches:

1.     We keep “Upward Frame” to remain loyal to the original Chinese wording, but we clarify in the Glossary that it should not be interpreted as stiff bracing — rather, it must retain buoyant, elastic quality.

2.     If we feel that “Frame” in English is misleading, then we may need to reconsider whether another term could better reflect 架 without implying rigidity.

Personally, I lean toward keeping “Frame” for fidelity to the text, but elaborating carefully in the description so that it does not suggest static blocking.

What are your thoughts?

Do you feel 架 here truly means structural bracing?

Or do you think it implies a dynamic, peng-like quality that simply uses different terminology?

I think this is an important distinction for technical accuracy and clarity.

 

4. Set 4 Eight Methods, Sequence & Technical Table

＊Glossary A25 Chest peng 胸掤 versus

* Glossary A27 Contain the chest 含胸

In the Manual pages 20-23, there's no mention of ‘’含

 

胸‘’， Contain the chest" .

Suggestion: we leave out "Contain the chest" in the Sequence & Technical Table.

Thank you again for your careful observation regarding Glossary A25 Chest Peng (胸掤) and Glossary A27 Contain the Chest (含胸) in Set 4.

You are correct that in the Manual (pp. 20–23), the term 「含胸」 does not explicitly appear in the sequence. The original wording in Set 4 is 「涵搭」, not 「含胸」—and that is precisely the dilemma I encountered during translation.

1️.On the Meaning of 涵搭

Breaking down the characters:

·         涵 (Hán)（含） – to contain, internalize, embody, hold inward with depth.

·         搭 (Dā) – to touch, connect, bridge (as in 搭手).

However, 涵搭 does not explicitly state that the “涵” refers to the chest.

If we strictly follow the Manual, we would translate it more neutrally, such as:

·         Non-Resistant Connection

·         Enveloping Bridge

·         Internalized Bridging Contact

This conveys:

·         A soft but substantial connection

·         Bridging without collision

·         Gathering information upon contact

·         Absorbing and sensing the opponent’s intention

But this still does not clearly state that the chest is involved.

2. Master Wu’s Technical Clarification

According to Master Wu’s instruction, in this particular movement:

涵搭 is actually a further degree of 胸掤.

This is very important.

He explains:

·         胸掤 (Chest Peng) does not necessarily require 涵胸.

·         But 涵胸 is a further internalization of Ward-Off (掤).

·         And without Ward-Off, you lose contact.

In other words:

·         掤 is the structural integrity and elastic connection.

·         胸掤 expresses that integrity through the torso.

·         涵胸 is a deeper, more internalized degree of that torso ward-off.

·         涵搭 represents that advanced state where the chest contains (涵) while simultaneously maintaining the bridge (搭).

So from Master Wu’s perspective:

涵搭 is not separate from 掤 —

it is an evolved, internalized extension of 掤.

This is why he insists that at this moment:

·         The chest must be contained.

·         The chest maintains ward-off elasticity.

·         The hand contacts, but the torso governs.

·         The connection is not arm-driven; it is center-driven.

3️. The Core Technical Principle

If we remove the ward-off element, the structure collapses.

If we translate 涵搭 only as a soft “bridge,” we risk losing:

·         The torso elasticity

·         The contained expansion

·         The ward-off continuity

Master Wu emphasizes that this is the “Goldilocks” zone:

·         Deep enough to control (涵)

·         Light enough to remain fluid (搭)

·         Structurally alive because of 掤

Without 掤, there is no sustained contact.

Without 涵, the ward-off remains superficial.

Thus, 涵搭 represents a refined, internally sustained Chest Ward-Off within contact.

4️,Translation Responsibility

So we are balancing two obligations:

1.     Faithfulness to the Manual wording (涵搭)

2.     Faithfulness to Master Wu’s technical meaning (涵胸拔背 → 鬆腰落胯)

If we delete “Contain the Chest,” we remain textually faithful —

but we may lose the internal instruction Master Wu insists upon.

So you are right. If we replace 涵搭 with “Contain the Chest,”

we risk deviating from the printed Manual.

5️. Possible Solution

I suggest:

·         Keep 涵搭 in the Sequence & Technical Table.

·         Add a technical note explaining:

In Set 4, 涵搭 represents a further internalization of Chest Peng (胸掤). It requires maintaining ward-off elasticity through the torso while containing the chest (含胸拔背).

This allows us to:

·         Preserve the original terminology.

·         Honor Master Wu’s technical requirement.

·         Maintain internal consistency.

·         Avoid rewriting the Manual text.

So I may decide to adhere strictly to the Manual by using Hán Dā (涵搭) in the Sequence and Technical Table, and provide a glossary definition as follows:

Hán Dā (涵搭) represents an advanced state in which the chest internally contains (涵) while simultaneously maintaining the bridging connection (搭).

Master Wu further illustrates this state with the analogy:

如雞孵卵 — “Like a hen incubating an egg.”

If the pressure is too heavy, you will crush the egg.

If it is too light, there is insufficient warmth to allow it to hatch.

This expresses the precise balance required in Hán Dā — neither collapsing nor overbearing, neither rigid nor empty.

He also describes the quality as:

微而不覺，綿綿若存

“So subtle that it is almost imperceptible,

yet continuous as if it never ceases.”

In this sense, Hán Dā embodies that refined state where:

·         The chest contains without tension.

·         The ward-off (掤) remains alive without protruding.

·         The contact is light yet structurally present.

·         The connection is sustained without visible exertion.

It is the “just right” equilibrium — controlled yet fluid, deep yet unforced — maintaining internal warmth and structural integrity without hardness.

Thank you again for your thoughtful scrutiny.

This level of discussion strengthens both the accuracy and integrity of the work.

Glossary

 Suggestion:

 

*Add in a description of Kua (胯）

Good — I think that is a very helpful suggestion.

* A13 Frame upward (架). We may need to clarify if "Frame" means Upper torso/body or an upward intercepting action using forearm.

Yes — I agree we need to clarify this carefully.

As I mentioned before, Frame Upward (架) in our current glossary is defined as:

Frame Upward (Jia)

Chinese: 架 (Jià)

An upward intercepting action using the forearm structure to lift or block the opponent’s force.

Technically, in martial arts — and certainly in Tai Chi — no upward action is ever purely an arm movement. The force must originate from the foot, pass through the kua and waist, integrate through the torso, and only then be expressed through the arms or hands.

So in that sense, any “upward frame” is naturally connected to the torso.

However, what makes me uncomfortable is that the term Frame sounds more external and mechanical — like a structural block — whereas the Tai Chi action we want here is elastic, buoyant, and alive. It carries the quality of 掤 (Peng), not merely a forearm interception.

That is why, if I could insist, I would prefer to use 上掤 (Upward Peng) instead of 架 — because 掤 inherently contains:

·         Elastic expansion

·         Structural buoyancy

·         Whole-body connection

·         Continuity of ward-off energy

Whereas 架, in common martial usage, may sound more like a rigid lift or block.

Now, regarding redefining A13:

If we keep 架 in order to stay faithful to the Manual, I suggest we redefine it more in line with Tai Chi internal mechanics, something like:

Frame Upward (Jia, 架)

A whole-body upward warding action expressed through the forearm structure. Although externally appearing as a lifting or intercepting motion, its force originates from the root (foot), is guided by the waist and torso, and maintains the elastic integrity of Peng energy rather than functioning as a rigid block.

This way:

·         We do not redefine 架 as “upper torso.”

·         We do not lose the original meaning of interception.

·         But we elevate it from a mechanical forearm action to a Tai Chi internal expression.

If we instead define it as 太極架, we risk changing the meaning of 架 too far from its martial origin.

So to answer your question directly:

“Frame” should not mean upper torso/body.

It should remain an upward intercepting action — but we must clarify that in Tai Chi it is executed through whole-body Peng structure, not through isolated arm strength.

That would preserve both textual faithfulness and internal accuracy.

Thank you again — this is exactly the kind of refinement that strengthens the glossary.

 

Incorrect information/ Inaccuracies:

 

1. This is not for English Translation but on Page 10 of the Manual, Diagram 2

* 甲 ： I think it should be ‘雙按‘’  not ‘’轉按‘’.

I just happened to notice this error.

Good catch — thank you for noticing this.

Yes, you’re absolutely right. It should be 「雙按」, not 「轉按」. That is clearly a typo in the Manual.

I will correct it in the next edition to ensure consistency with the sequence and technical description.

Thank you again for your careful reading — these details truly help improve the overall quality of the work.

 

2. Set 3 Sequence

Athlete B, Sequence Number 9:

*Left hand contact Athlete A's  elbow (not B's)

Athlete B,  Technical Table Number 7

 

*Apply a deflecting action to  Athlete A's (not B's) left shoulder

You’re absolutely right — thank you for pointing them out.

 

 

Formatting

 

Standardise the description of the number of Judges / Referees

Thank you for pointing this out.

Could you please specify what the exact issue is regarding the standardisation of the number of Judges / Referees?

For example:

·         Is it an inconsistency in terminology (e.g., “Judges” vs. “Referees”)?

·         Is it the total number listed in different sections?

·         Or is it a discrepancy between the Rules section and the Technical Table?

If you could indicate the page or section where you noticed the inconsistency, that would help me review and correct it accurately.

Thank you again for your careful reading.

 

 

Article 25

 

To be revised according to any changes to the  Sequence and Technical Table (to be disicussed).

Good — I agree.

After we reach consensus on the Sequence and Technical Table revisions, we can then update Article 25 accordingly to ensure full consistency.

It makes sense to finalize the technical content first, and then adjust the article to reflect any confirmed changes.

Thank you — that’s a very logical approach.

 

Others

 

There are some typos, spelling errors, the uniform usage of upper & lower cases but they are easy to correct.

Good — thank you very much for noticing those.

Yes, typos, spelling errors, and inconsistencies in upper and lower case usage all need to correct once clearly identified.

Could I kindly ask you to mark the corrections in a different color when you edit the file? That way, I can easily follow up, review each item systematically, and make the necessary revisions efficiently.

Thank you again for your careful proofreading — it is truly appreciated.

 Regarding the terminology, I would like to clarify my current thinking on several key words:

---

1️⃣ Connection vs. Receiving vs. Acceptance

In Master Wu’s book, he consistently emphasizes the concept of “connection.” That is why in 鬆柔太極拳推手, I translated related terms primarily using connection rather than “acceptance.”

For the National Tai Chi Chuan Association, however, “receiving” may be more technically appropriate, because it reflects the structural function of 承接 — to take in and continue the incoming force.

I do not prefer the word “acceptance.” To “accept” implies a voluntary decision, like “I accept your proposal.” In push hands, 承接 is not a matter of agreement or consent; it is a structural response. The body receives and continues force through alignment and elasticity, not through psychological choice.

So at present, my view is:

• Connection — aligns more closely with Master Wu’s insistence on continuous structural linkage.

• Receiving — suitable in formal association or rule-based terminology.

• Acceptance — not ideal for technical martial usage.

---

2️⃣ External vs. Internal

Since “external” is used in opposition to “internal,” I would clarify it this way:

External (外) in this context does not refer to the philosophical classification of martial arts systems. Rather, it describes a mode of force application that relies more on localized muscular effort and limb-based mechanics.

In contrast:

Internal (內) refers to force generated through integrated whole-body coordination — driven from the center, transmitted through fascia-based connectivity, elastic structure, and what we traditionally describe as qi circulation.

So:

• External tends to be more muscular, more localized, and more limb-dominant.

• Internal tends to be more center-driven, connective-tissue integrated, elastic, and structurally unified.

However, when we use the term 外 in 外承接法, we are not implying muscular force. We are distinguishing the structural pathway of contact along the outer arm line. It should not be confused with “external” in the muscular or stylistic sense.

---

3️⃣ On Standardization

You are absolutely right — terminology is not yet fully standardized among practitioners. Even within our own materials, subtle variations appear depending on context and interpretation. This is true not only among leading figures in Taiwan, but also across the broader Chinese martial arts community — and certainly worldwide.

However, we can take the initiative to establish clearer definitions within our own framework and gradually build consistency from there.

When I visit the American Tai Chi communities in June, I will further discuss the Manual with them as well, and hopefully reach broader consensus on certain terms and interpretations. That feedback may also help us refine the wording before any future edition.

If you happen to find anything inconsistent in Master Wu’s book — wording, capitalization, terminology, or interpretation — please do let me know. There may well be a second edition in the future, and that would be an excellent opportunity to refine and correct anything necessary.

Thank you again for your thoughtful review and collaborative spirit. I truly appreciate the depth of your engagement.

Warm regards,